Were the Lunar Rovers faked?

  • 177 Replies
  • 57335 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Anywho

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 18
    • View Profile
Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« on: 06/03/2013 05:06:26 »
There are so any problems associated with the Lunar Rover that it would seem almost farcical to believe they could possibly be real.

The construction:

It is often said that if astronauts could not even sit on a Lunar Rover here on Earth because the Rovers were built of such lightweight construction that they "would have collapsed in 1 g if the crew sat on it." (1), and that the " The vehicle could support its own weight on earth, but no more" (2).

It would seem to defy basic physics to build a weak design because the astronauts on the moon are not just gently putting their weight onto the vehicles, they are also imparting their considerable momentum onto the vehicles and that momentum will be the same on earth as it is on the moon, the mass of the astronauts and their suits do not change. If we take as an example the method the astronauts supposedly used for getting onto the Rovers we can see that they jump up and onto the vehicles:

Quote
Getting to sit on the Rover seat in a stiff pressure suit from the lurain was not so easy. The astronauts found they had to stand facing forward, then with an upward and sideways kick, jump up with their legs and arms stretched out ahead to hopefully land in the middle of their seat.

http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/msfn_missions/Apollo_15_mission/hl_Apollo15.html

p=mv tells us that the momentum that the astronauts have, and therefore the forces they will impart, are the same on the Earth as they are on the Moon as long as they are traveling at the same speed. This means that if the astronauts, in the final stage of jumping onto the rover, fall from a height of 6 inches on the moon then the forces they impart onto the rover will be the same as if they fell from a height of 1 inch here on earth.

Once we understand that the forces of momentum are independent of weight then it is nonsensical to suggest you cannot even sit on a rover on earth, but you can jump on one on the moon. The astronauts and their suits have the same mass on earth as they do on the moon and it is very hard to imagine that jumping onto the rovers on the moon they would have less velocity than sitting on them here on earth.

Similarly, driving the rovers on an uneven terrain where the chassis is often forced to change directions vertically, the forces will be very similar, if not the same as here on Earth. Hitting a mound at 10kph will impart the same forces on the vehicle as hitting a mound at 10kph here on earth, the mass and velocity are the same. If you can't hoon around a crater filled terrain here on earth with the vehicles then you can't do it on the moon. If you can't sit on a rover on earth then you can't jump onto one on the moon.

Traction:

To take a 4WD onto a loose ungroomed surface here on Earth would not be counter-intuitive to most people, however, most people would balk at the idea of taking a 2wd vehicle onto a loose ungroomed terrain here on earth because, quite sensibly, it is unlikely a 2wd, with half the traction of a 4WD, would have enough traction. Well, on the Moon a 4WD does not have anywhere near half the traction of a 4WD on earth, it has only a piddly 1/6 the traction and that is true for steering, braking, and accelerating.

Fully loaded the rovers on the moon have a mass of approx 1,500lbs, yet they only have approx 250lbs of weight on the ground to try and accelerate, steer, and brake the 1500lb mass, and they are on a loose surface. The suggestion anyone can go 4WD driving on a loose surface in 1/6g is ludicrous.

I know defenders of the apollo missions will say that the lunar dust binds together so it is not loose, and will quote astronauts as saying they had big trouble controlling the rovers. The problem with both these excuses is that it is not what we see in the video and photographic footage, instead we see a surface that is very loose with dust being disturbed very easy by the astronauts moving around in it, and we see no control problems with the rovers either in driving or the photos of the tracks. It would appear as though they are merely paying homage to the physics while, at the same time, not bothering to fake any traction difficulties for TV.

Power:

The rovers would appear to be massively underpowered, they have 4 x 1/4hp motors giving a grand total of 1hp to drive a 1,500lb vehicle. One horsepower is low powered even for a mobility scooter, imagine putting seven big blokes on a low powered mobility scooter and seeing what performance you get out of it, yet on the moon they hooned around no problems at all.

Uphill there would be some benefits from being on the moon but driving on a flat surface on the moon you would get the same performance as on earth, simply because it is the same mass that has to be accelerated.

Balance:

The rovers are horribly unbalance vehicles, they weigh approximately 460lbs and the astronauts weigh approx 400lbs each fully suited (3), this means when one astronaut is driving there is approximately 3/4 of the weight on one side of the vehicle:



I doubt many of us would want to drive such an unbalanced vehicle over an uneven terrain here on earth, but on the moon where 1/6 g means it is much more likely to roll the suggestion becomes untenable. If the driver were to hit a rise on the unweighted side of the vehicle then the rover will rise 2, 3, or 4 times higher than it will hitting the same bump on earth (depending on the degree of the slope).

In conclusion:

We are supposed to believe they took a 4WD to the moon that was of such a lightweight design that they couldn't sit on it on earth, but they could jump on it on the moon?

They had no traction problems on a loose surface in 1/6g even though 1/6g equals a whooping 1/6th of the traction?

They had ample power driving a 1500lb mass with a 1hp vehicle?

They could hoon around with one astronaut on one side of the vehicle (approx 3/4 the weight on one side), on an uneven terrain hitting bumps in 1/6g, with no worries at all about rolling?

(1) http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/docs/ApolloCat/Part1/LRV.htm

(2) http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch23-3.html

(3) http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/A17_LunarRover2.pdf

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #1 on: 06/03/2013 06:33:17 »
Ok,
Let's compare the specs of your typical lunar rover to my car.

1957 Fiat 500.
Curb Weight:  499 kg (1,100 lb).
HP: 13 (original 479cc, later upgraded to 499cc, and 17 HP).
Top speed of about 55 MPH.
Construction, Steel.

Lunar Rover
Curb Weight, 209 kilos, 462 lbs.
Loaded weight, max of about 1600 lbs.
Power, 1 HP.
Top speed of about 8.7 MPH, or 14 KPH.
Construction: aluminum alloy.

If you notice while driving, getting up to about 10 MPH doesn't take much power, and many vehicles can do it at idle.  In fact, it is hard to hold some vehicles down to 10 MPH.

And, with my Fiat, while it does seem a bit under powered on the Freeway, I've always thought it had excellent 0 to 10 MPH acceleration.

It may be that for a standard gasoline powered vehicle with transmission, the engine to wheel power conversion would be close to 50%, or less, giving the original Fiat 500 the equivalent of about 6 HP at the wheels.  Direct drive, 1/4 HP to each wheel may give a higher power ratio, perhaps even 100% to the wheels.

I have never felt particularly unbalanced in my Fiat 500, although I might consider a different design for a lighter car.  I have been thinking of a design for a multi-passenger pedal car, and have thought about a 3 person design with a single person in the middle position, 2 people at the sides, and 3 people across when at capacity.

The weakest point on the frame would be the vertical load.  Starting, stopping, and turning, it is likely much stronger.  It isn't flying over bumps very fast.

I've taken a 2wd drive vehicle in some pretty extraordinary places.  While there are a few surfaces that one looses traction, I don't worry too much about dry ground.  It is the wet mud (not on the moon) that is the biggest problem.  Some wheel weight, of course, is good for traction, but a lightweight vehicle would also be much easier to get moving.

I probably would have chosen wide paddle tires like a dunebuggy, or perhaps a more aggressive agriculture tread.  However, narrow tires can actually get good grip by concentrating the weight in a smaller area.

Anyway, I don't see why that vehicle couldn't be able to do a speedy 10 MPH on the moon.

*

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6890
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #2 on: 06/03/2013 16:33:21 »
Not another conspiracy theory .......... please!
If brains were made of dynamite, I wouldn't have enough to blow my nose.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #3 on: 06/03/2013 19:40:50 »
LOL
"They had ample power driving a 1500lb mass with a 1hp vehicle?"
So, a bit like a horse then?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #4 on: 06/03/2013 20:05:57 »
"They had ample power driving a 1500lb mass with a 1hp vehicle?"
So, a bit like a horse then?

It depends on if it was a Chinese Horse!!!!

Were the motors fan cooled or fin cooled?

*

Offline Anywho

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 18
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #5 on: 07/03/2013 04:00:35 »
Ok,
Let's compare the specs of your typical lunar rover to my car.

1957 Fiat 500.
Curb Weight:  499 kg (1,100 lb).
HP: 13 (original 479cc, later upgraded to 499cc, and 17 HP).
Top speed of about 55 MPH.
Construction, Steel.

Lunar Rover
Curb Weight, 209 kilos, 462 lbs.
Loaded weight, max of about 1600 lbs.
Power, 1 HP.
Top speed of about 8.7 MPH, or 14 KPH.
Construction: aluminum alloy.

If you notice while driving, getting up to about 10 MPH doesn't take much power, and many vehicles can do it at idle.  In fact, it is hard to hold some vehicles down to 10 MPH.

And, with my Fiat, while it does seem a bit under powered on the Freeway, I've always thought it had excellent 0 to 10 MPH acceleration.

It may be that for a standard gasoline powered vehicle with transmission, the engine to wheel power conversion would be close to 50%, or less, giving the original Fiat 500 the equivalent of about 6 HP at the wheels.  Direct drive, 1/4 HP to each wheel may give a higher power ratio, perhaps even 100% to the wheels.

I have never felt particularly unbalanced in my Fiat 500, although I might consider a different design for a lighter car.  I have been thinking of a design for a multi-passenger pedal car, and have thought about a 3 person design with a single person in the middle position, 2 people at the sides, and 3 people across when at capacity.

The weakest point on the frame would be the vertical load.  Starting, stopping, and turning, it is likely much stronger.  It isn't flying over bumps very fast.

I've taken a 2wd drive vehicle in some pretty extraordinary places.  While there are a few surfaces that one looses traction, I don't worry too much about dry ground.  It is the wet mud (not on the moon) that is the biggest problem.  Some wheel weight, of course, is good for traction, but a lightweight vehicle would also be much easier to get moving.

I probably would have chosen wide paddle tires like a dunebuggy, or perhaps a more aggressive agriculture tread.  However, narrow tires can actually get good grip by concentrating the weight in a smaller area.

Anyway, I don't see why that vehicle couldn't be able to do a speedy 10 MPH on the moon.

I looked around and found a forum discussion where they say a 1hp buggy has 80% efficiency, that gives your fiat approximately 10 times the hp of the rovers (converting your current 17hp to 8.5 and the rovers to .8hp). If you put 2 people into the fiat it will near enough be equal in weight to the fully loaded rover, so you are more or less comparing the performance of two vehicles that have an order of magnitude difference in the power to weight ration.

You say you have never felt unbalanced in your fiat, well, to get a similar imbalance to the rovers with one astronaut on them you would have to put 5 men all on one side of the fiat (giving 3/4 the weight on one side). I would fancy you would not find this too appealing to drive even in a straight line, let alone over an uneven surface and cornering. Adding to the imbalance is the fact that it would be many times easier to roll a vehicle on the moon than on earth.

You say you have taken a 2wd off road many times and your only fear is wet mud, while if you live in a muddy area this may be largely true because dry mud can set like concrete, I live in a very sandy area and anyone with any brains knows the danger of taking a 2wd onto any sandy area that is not well grassed or at least deliberately compacted by machinery.

The point about the traction is that they didn't have anywhere near the earth equivalent of a 2wd up there, they had less than the equivalent of a 1 wheel drive for traction, it is simply true that 1/6g equals 1/6 the traction so I stand by the assertion that a 4WD is woefully inadequate for driving on a loose surface in 1/6g.


*

Offline Anywho

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 18
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #6 on: 07/03/2013 04:20:59 »
LOL
"They had ample power driving a 1500lb mass with a 1hp vehicle?"
So, a bit like a horse then?


More accurately, a bit like a low powered one of these, only instead of one person it has to transport the equivalent of 6 large men:



Mobility scooters can come in up to 3hp, so 1hp is near the bottom end of power for one of these, if you were designing a vehicle to transport a massive* 1500lbs gross would you consider such a low power system to be adequate?

*Massive compared to what mobility scooters are designed for.

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8169
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #7 on: 07/03/2013 04:34:48 »
« Last Edit: 07/03/2013 04:44:37 by RD »

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #8 on: 07/03/2013 06:15:26 »
I believe that many dune buggies are two wheel drive.
Often based on VW Bug engines.
And, with the typical open differential, it is not uncommon for a 2 wheel drive to become a 1 wheel drive.

4 wheel electric motors would be an excellent type of traction differential.

I'm not sure you can completely ignore gravity.  On the moon, the rover would sink into the regolith 1/6 as much as on Earth.  The weight on the bearings is also 1/6 as much.  No wind resistance.  Going up hill, it is 1/6 as much weight to move. 

And, if one got stuck, it would be easy enough to get out and push. 

I have no doubt that the astronauts were instructed not to drive into a hole they couldn't get out of.

*

Offline Anywho

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 18
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #9 on: 07/03/2013 06:46:09 »
You can see where one has been driving about and where it is parked ...
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584392main_M168000580LR_ap17_area.jpg



This thread is about the physics of taking a 1hp, massively unbalanced, 4wd to the moon and having no problems with traction, rolling, power etc. It also asks the question whether you can build a rover so weak that it cannot be sat on here on earth and then take it to the moon and jump onto it before hooning around on an uneven surface (both of with should be impossible if it is so fragile that it cannot be sat on here on earth).

I think your post is valid but I am hoping my reply does not lead to a distraction from the subject matter of the thread.

I think those photos from the LRO do absolutely nothing to prove the Apollo missions took place, they are of poor quality compared to what most people would have been hoping for, and they are easily faked.

There are also a few questions about their validity like why are the tracks so clear even very close to the landers, in other words, why didn't the exhaust from the ascent rocket engine taking off disturb the tracks surrounding the lander?

Another question is why are the tracks darker than the surrounding soil? It is known that the lunar soil is darker on the surface due to radiation darkening so any disturbed soil should have a considerably higher albedo than the surrounding soil.

Once again, I hope my reply does not distract from the questions about the rovers and lead to a discussion about the LRO photos.

*

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4242
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #10 on: 07/03/2013 15:26:01 »
On the Earth, the rover has to support its own weight (and presumably gets a bit of structural support from the launch vehicle during the rigors of liftoff).

On the Moon, the rover only has to support 1/6 of its own weight, plus 1/6 the weight of its heavily-garbed passengers.
The momentum is the same at 10km/h on the Moon as at 10km/h on the Earth. However:
  • The wheels don't have to hold up so much weight on the Moon, so you can make them very much "softer".
  • Similarly, the chassis does not need to be so rigid - it can be much more flexible.
  • They occasionally managed to get 1 or more wheels "airborne" (vacuum-borne?) at 10km/h horizontal speed, but because the Lunar gravity is so much lower, the vertical speed would be very much lower than 10km/h.
  • Taken together, the change in momentum to stop a vertical impact is spread out over a much longer time on the Moon.
  • So the forces on the vehicle would be much less than the impact of an airborne vehicle on Earth.
  • And the forces on the vehicle would still be less than driving over the same terrain on Earth at 10km/h without getting airborne (because gravity is lower).
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRSpntQ-VtY

*

Offline Anywho

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 18
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #11 on: 09/03/2013 06:20:02 »
On the Moon, the rover only has to support 1/6 of its own weight, plus 1/6 the weight of its heavily-garbed passengers.


That is only true if both are stationary, I have put a link up which shows that the astronauts supposedly had to jump up and onto the rovers, this means that even before being driven the rovers are coming under a lot more force than the static weight of the astronauts either on earth or the moon.

Once we know that the astronauts jump onto the rovers then weight can be ignored in estimating what forces the rovers will come under because it is a combination of mass and velocity that will determine the force, and is a noncontroversial fact that your mass is the same on earth as it is on the moon.

Unless we are to rewrite p=mv to p=wv, meaning weight times velocity instead of mass times velocity, then it is nonsensical to say you can't sit on a rover here on earth but you can jump onto one on the moon.

The wheels don't have to hold up so much weight on the Moon, so you can make them very much "softer".

I don't believe this to be true at all (nor the other comment about the chassis), the wheels and chassis have to be designed for the worst stresses the vehicle will come under, and on both the earth and the moon that will be all the bumps and dips the vehicle hits while being driven, not the static loading.

On both the earth and moon, as you acknowledge, the momentum will be the same at the same speed, therefore hitting bump and rises will put the same stresses on the frame and wheels in both cases, or at least very similar stresses.

Similar stresses means basically that if you can't drive it around hitting bumps at 10 or 15 kph here on earth, then you cant do it on the moon. Yet they tell us you can't even sit on the rovers here on earth but you can drive around hitting bumps on the moon.




*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #12 on: 09/03/2013 11:53:50 »
Ok,
So, on the moon, you have a vehicle that can carry the momentum of a 1500 lb vehicle, at 10 mpg.
However, it has a vertical weight of only 250 lbs.

It would be easy enough to add springs and shocks designed to support a 250 lb vehicle, but with a wide dynamic range, so that they could absorb the impact of say a 1000 lb dynamic impact.  Likewise, your A-Arms and kingpin/spindle assembly would be designed to handle the 1500 lb dynamic load of say pushing into and over a rock.  Furthermore, if you wished to carry 500 lbs of moonrocks, you would load those over the axles, rather than in the middle of the chassis.  Each passenger would weigh only about 1/6 of 400 lbs, or about 67 lbs. 

I could imagine a structure that could absorb the vertical impact of say tossing a 67 lb  of grain on it, by using well designed springs, but would be unable to support 800 lbs of weight applied to the middle of the frame.

Assuming a left hand drive, you might instruct your drivers not to do hard right hand turns with a single driver, and no passengers.  It wouldn't take much to convince the astronauts that their lives depended on safe driving.  They might survive a roll-over, but damage to their spacesuits could be fatal.

Apparently they never ventured more than about 5 miles from the lunar module.  It would be a long bunny hop back to the module, but they were pretty much within walking distance to get back.

*

Offline Anywho

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 18
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #13 on: 11/03/2013 01:35:37 »

I could imagine a structure that could absorb the vertical impact of say tossing a 67 lb  of grain on it, by using well designed springs, but would be unable to support 800 lbs of weight applied to the middle of the frame.

Assuming a left hand drive, you might instruct your drivers not to do hard right hand turns with a single driver, and no passengers.  It wouldn't take much to convince the astronauts that their lives depended on safe driving.  They might survive a roll-over, but damage to their spacesuits could be fatal.


When the astronauts jump onto the vehicles on the moon it is not the equivalent of throwing a 67lb bag of grain onto it, it is the equivalent of throwing a 400lb bag of whatever onto it. The difference between earth and the moon is not in the weight because the mass never changes and, unless stationary, it is the mass which is relevant, the only difference will be in the speed at which the astronauts freefall onto the rovers.

Like I said earlier, if they jump onto the rover here on earth and clear the vehicle by 1 inch, and they jump onto the vehicle on the moon and clear the vehicle by 6 inches then the forces on the vehicle will be exactly the same.

However, sitting is a very controlled and relatively gentle process as opposed to jumping, there can be little doubt that jumping onto the vehicle on the moon will put more stress on the frame than sitting on it here on earth.

As you correctly point out any accident is likely to result in suit failure, and therefore death, so there has to be ample redundancy in the structure of the rovers to handle any foreseeable event, yet we are told these rovers are so weak that they cannot even be sat upon on earth but they can be jumped onto on the moon and driven at 15kph over uneven surface with complete confidence?

WRT your next point, there is no evidence the astronauts took it easy when they were in the rovers alone, in fact all the evidence is to the contrary with the highest speeds and most radical driving being done when there was only one astronaut on board belying the fact that there is 3/4 the weight on one side of the vehicle, it is uneven terrain, and that it is significantly easier to roll a vehicle in 1/6g.


*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #14 on: 11/03/2013 11:29:40 »
Ok,
So the astronaut on the moon will act both as a 67 lb weight, and a 400 lb mass.

Just sitting on the rover, the astronaut would exert a downward weight of 67 lbs. 
Going over a bump, however, the astronaut would provide the same resistance to change as a 400 lb mass.

That would play both ways.
When you go over a bump, it would take essentially the same amount of force to get a wheel airborne as on the Earth.  However, it will fall back down 6 times as fast on the Earth.

That may give one a strange sense of stability, that the rover would in fact exhibit similar resistance to flipping on the Earth and the moon., although it would be easier to maintain a wheelie on the moon as there would be less force bringing the airborne tire back down.  Some things might feel like they were happening in slow motion.

If I was designing the rover, I would build it with extremely weak springs.  This would mean that the effect of the majority of the bumps would be transferred to the suspension system, not to the frame and the passengers.

It is possible that the weakness of the frame was overstated, although the springs would likely bottom out if the rover was fully loaded on Earth.

Many of the moon/rover photos indicate that much of the driving was on relatively flat, but bumpy landscape.

Certainly nothing was as rugged as say the McKenzie Pass, in part because the regolith provides a generally sand-like surface.


*

Offline Anywho

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 18
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #15 on: 12/03/2013 05:46:22 »
Ok,
So the astronaut on the moon will act both as a 67 lb weight, and a 400 lb mass.

Just sitting on the rover, the astronaut would exert a downward weight of 67 lbs. 
Going over a bump, however, the astronaut would provide the same resistance to change as a 400 lb mass.

That would play both ways.
When you go over a bump, it would take essentially the same amount of force to get a wheel airborne as on the Earth.  However, it will fall back down 6 times as fast on the Earth.

That may give one a strange sense of stability, that the rover would in fact exhibit similar resistance to flipping on the Earth and the moon., although it would be easier to maintain a wheelie on the moon as there would be less force bringing the airborne tire back down.  Some things might feel like they were happening in slow motion.


You will rise significantly higher after hitting a bump on the moon, it may be 3 or 4 times as high depending on the slope of the bump you hit. You will also have approx 6 times the hang time due the parabolic arc being both longer and higher, meaning that it is much easier to roll a vehicle on the moon than here on earth.

There is no easy solution regarding the suspension, if you make it stiff you put more stress on the frame but if you make it soft then you increase the chances of rolling.

I cannot see any advantage to driving a car in 1/6g, only disadvantages like traction loss and rolling being more of a problem etc. Yet with the rovers they supposedly took a vehicle all the way to the moon that would be too unbalanced to operate safely here on earth and therefore many times more dangerous on the moon...

...too structurally weak to operate safely safely here on earth even though the stresses will be largely the same on the moon...

...of such low power that it would be insufficient on earth even though the mass that has to be accelerated is the same on earth as the moon...

....and has a drive system that is of a noted design for loose surfaces on earth (4wd), but makes no concessions for the fact that on the moon there will be only 1/6g and therefore 1/6 the traction.

And it all went swimmingly well with no problems at all???

*

Offline Anywho

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 18
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #16 on: 12/03/2013 06:15:20 »
BTW, the Soviets supposedly sent an unmanned rover to the moon, I say "supposedly" because there is a possibility, on both sides, that there was as much BS and bluffing going on at the time of the space race as there was genuine advances.

Anyhow, real or not, the soviets at least made concessions to the low traction of 1/6g by giving their rover 8 wheel drive.



It is also worth noting that because the soviet rover was unmanned and was crawling around in a quasi static manner, it required much less traction than the relatively high performance apollo rovers.


*

Offline Anywho

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 18
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #17 on: 16/03/2013 03:04:15 »
Ok,
So the astronaut on the moon will act both as a 67 lb weight, and a 400 lb mass.

Just sitting on the rover, the astronaut would exert a downward weight of 67 lbs. 
Going over a bump, however, the astronaut would provide the same resistance to change as a 400 lb mass.

That would play both ways.
When you go over a bump, it would take essentially the same amount of force to get a wheel airborne as on the Earth.  However, it will fall back down 6 times as fast on the Earth.


It will only fall back 6 times as fast if they both rise to the same height, but on the moon the rovers will, upon hitting a bump, rise many times higher so by the time it comes down the speed difference will be more likely around half as fast than 1/6th the speed.

So the way I see it is that driving around hitting bumps will put very similar stresses on the frames on the moon as on earth because the mass and velocity are the same, the chances of rolling will be far greater on the moon, but when the rover lands after hitting he bump then it will land lighter* on the moon than on earth.

* by "lighter" I mean slower and therefore with less stress on the frame, how much slower will depend on the angle of the rise.




*

Offline Anywho

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 18
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #18 on: 27/03/2013 15:26:29 »
Someone on another forum posted footage of them testing the rovers for 1/6g, they had ropes suspending 5/6 of the weight.

This really highlights how farcical driving a 4wd on the moon is, the only test they show is one that is designed not to fail where they take a run up on a firm surface, then just go straight over a short test bed. Effectively this test nothing on the loose surface, not braking, not steering, not acceleration.

The test is, like the whole notion of 4WDriving on the moon, a farce (starts at 2.04, video is set to then)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=FVMfjPXwRO4#t=124s

Even with this mockery of a test you can see the back bobbling around, and that is at slow speeds and over a relatively smooth bed, this highlights how ridiculous the "Grand Prix" test runs were on the moon when they supposedly drove with full control at much higher speeds and over much bumpier terrain.

But the really funny thing about the tests in the video, the ones that were designed not to fail, is that they did fail. The third test shows a start of control loss even before they hit the test bed and they can't regain control instead slipping and sliding until they come to a stop while still on the test bed.

The tests really do highlight everything I have said about how farcical 4WDriving on the moon would be.

*

Offline Anywho

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 18
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #19 on: 01/04/2013 01:53:43 »
For the lunar rovers, traction in 1/6g is a massive problem to overcome, the vehicles only have approx 250lbs weight on the ground an yet have to propel a 1500lb mass, and to make things more difficult it is a loose surface they have to do this on.

To do this they had a wire mesh wheel with chevrons covering about 50% of the contact surface area, the chevrons are both smooth and shallow, so the wheel does not have a deep thread. The chevrons directly cover 50% of the frictive surface and they also recess the remaining frictive surface.



These wheels were tested by the US army engineers for NASA and the results appear to show that the rovers could not possibly have operated on the moon.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/PerfBoeingLRVWheelsRpt1.pdf

They simulated 57lbs of weight on the wheels, they have a pull coefficient of approx 0.5 to 0.6 before slip becomes so bad it will immobilise the vehicle (1), now I read that as meaning with 57lbs weight the wheel can pull 85lbs to 92lbs before slip is too problematic, yet each wheel has to pull 342lbs to move the rover on the moon.

Does the testing prove that the rovers could not get enough traction to work on the moon?

(1) fig. A12. graph entitled "comparisons of relations off pull coefficients to slip obtained by three different recording methods", it is the last graph, third page from the bottom.

Mod: I've merged this post with a previous, nearly identical topic chain.
« Last Edit: 02/04/2013 07:05:38 by Anywho »

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #20 on: 25/09/2013 21:27:42 »
Quote from: Anywho

The construction:


It is often said that if astronauts could not even sit on a Lunar Rover here on Earth because the Rovers were built of such lightweight construction that they "would have collapsed in 1 g if the crew sat on it." (1), and that the " The vehicle could support its own weight on earth, but no more" (2).
You have to watch what you believe. This claim is bogus. See the two astronauts sitting inside one on Earth at http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/nasas-lunar-rover-everything-you-need-to-know.html

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8169
    • View Profile

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4809
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #22 on: 26/09/2013 00:26:59 »
For the lunar rovers, traction in 1/6g is a massive problem to overcome, the vehicles only have approx 250lbs weight on the ground an yet have to propel a 1500lb mass, and to make things more difficult it is a loose surface they have to do this on.

Makes you wonder how sled dogs manage to do anything useful, how a tiny tugboat can move a tanker, or indeed how I manage to push my car. Obviously, life on earth is a fake and Newton was a liar.

Quote
I doubt many of us would want to drive such an unbalanced vehicle over an uneven terrain

which is why it takes a lot of selection and several years of intensive training to produce an astronaut.
« Last Edit: 26/09/2013 09:36:01 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #23 on: 27/09/2013 00:11:45 »
I doubt many of us would want to drive such an unbalanced vehicle over an uneven terrain
which is why it takes a lot of selection and several years of intensive training to produce an astronaut.
I have no doubt the astronauts were "adrenaline junkies" to some extent.  However, explain to them that a car crash might be fatal, or running out of power could mean a long and dangerous walk back to the lunar module, and I have no doubt that they would pay attention to driving.

A modern lunar rover could be designed with a turn limiter so that it couldn't do a sharp left hand turn with a left hand load, however, undoubtedly in the 60's, a lot was dependent on skill and training of the astronauts.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4809
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #24 on: 28/09/2013 12:47:49 »
The astronaut selection process sought out professional pilots with an engineering background and many hours of incident-free flying, not barnstormers. Test flying is about attention to detail and cautious approaches to the design specification of the machine, not shaking it to bits and parachting out of the wreckage.  There was even a bias against bachelors on the grounds that married men were more interested in coming home than in impressing anyone with their bravado. Learning to drive half a ton of scientific equipment over rough and slippery ground is part of many expeditions on this planet.   
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline starbuck1963

  • First timers
  • *
  • 5
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #25 on: 02/10/2013 02:41:24 »
It is obvious that you are not accepting the facts simply because you don't want to accept the facts.  Ignorance and stubbornness is a deadly combination.
I'm not sure what would motivate somebody to hold on to such silliness but that is your right.

Here's the reality:
We went to the Moon. PERIOD!
We sent rovers to the Moon. PERIOD!
The Russians sent a rover to the Moon.  PERIOD!
We sent and continue to send rovers to Mars. PERIOD!

While the theoretical possibility that the Moon landing were faked is not 100% impossible...but ask yourself three questions,
1.  Why would they fake it not once but 6 (almost 7) times?  If you get away with it once you don't keep going back to the well.  Especially if you have nothing to gain from it financially or politically.
2. Since there were over 400,000 people DIRECTLY involved in the Apollo program, do you actually believe that such a massive secret could be kept?!?!?!?!?!!?
3.  Surely the Soviets knew...do you also believe that they wouldn't have outed us if we faked even the smallest part of the Apollo program?

I'll also add that subsequent Lunar probes had actually photographed Apollo landing sites complete with footprints AND rover tire tracks.

Finally, having some knowledge of electric vehicles, I happen to know of a 3200 pound electric Corvette that can do over 100 mph with a 40hp motor!!!
Electric motors are instant torque, instant power and ultra efficient.
So yes, four 1/4 hp motors are more than sufficient to drive a fully loaded rover on the Lunar surface.

Your arguments are all easily and completely refutable.
And don't delude yourself into thinking you are simply being determined or resolute in your assertions; constantly arguing in the face of overwhelming facts is not just stubbornness, it is borderline mental illness.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4809
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #26 on: 02/10/2013 15:53:05 »
How does a 1 hp, 2000 lb horse manage to swim? How does a 1/10 hp, 200 lb man walk on ice? How can I ski uphill? You can't ride a motorbike and sidecar with the sidecar empty.

All everyday life is a fake. Or just maybe there's less conflicting traffic on the moon.

Quote
constantly arguing in the face of overwhelming facts is not just stubbornness, it is borderline mental illness.

unless you are a priest or a politician, in which case it is called a profession.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #27 on: 11/11/2013 22:24:27 »
Here's the reality:
We went to the Moon. PERIOD!
We sent rovers to the Moon. PERIOD!
The Russians sent a rover to the Moon.  PERIOD!
We sent and continue to send rovers to Mars. PERIOD!

Your arguments are all easily and completely refutable.
And don't delude yourself into thinking you are simply being determined or resolute in your assertions; constantly arguing in the face of overwhelming facts is not just stubbornness, it is borderline mental illness.

The vast majority of the Apollo moon footage was faked. It was faked with the help of Stanley Kubrick and the cinema techniques learned in "2001: A Space Odyssey'.

Researcher Jay Weidner has proven the case the footage is fake.

Start here:

http://youtu.be/SfK7HLePcn8?t=1m47s

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8169
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #28 on: 12/11/2013 00:01:39 »
The vast majority of the Apollo moon footage was faked.

Why only fake "the vast majority" ? , either fake it all and don't bother going , or it's real ...
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=27912.msg293914#msg293914


[attachment=18162]
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html
« Last Edit: 12/11/2013 00:19:36 by RD »

*

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #29 on: 12/11/2013 00:21:03 »
The vast majority of the Apollo moon footage was faked.

Why only fake "the vast majority" ? , either fake it all and don't bother going , or it's real ...
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=27912.msg293914#msg293914

The images that didnt need to be faked are the near earth images or inside capsule images.

All the moon landscape photos were staged. The most interesting fakes are from Apollo 15, 16, and 17.

Lets start with Apollo 17

Show me any Apollo 17 moon landscape photo from http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html that contains black sky and i'll show you how it was faked. Photo can be of anything just needs to contain black sky background to show the fake stage set.

*

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #30 on: 12/11/2013 00:28:35 »
I'm not saying NASA didnt go to the moon. I am saying the photos NASA released were faked.


How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Moon Footage
http://www.realitysandwich.com/kubrick_apollo
« Last Edit: 12/11/2013 00:30:34 by KubricksOdyssey »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8169
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #31 on: 12/11/2013 00:52:29 »
I'm not saying NASA didnt go to the moon. I am saying the photos NASA released were faked.

It's totally nonsensical to only fake some photos/ films. Logically they could avoid the expense and the risk of failure by faking it all , or do it for real, (it's the latter as shown by the before after photos you can find here ).

You're wasting your time regurgitating the "Kubrick" conspiracy-theory baloney in this forum ...

Quote from: wikipedia.org/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories
The Flat Earth Society was one of the first organizations to accuse NASA of faking the landings, arguing that they were staged by Hollywood with Walt Disney sponsorship, based on a script by Arthur C. Clarke and directed by Stanley Kubrick ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Origins
« Last Edit: 12/11/2013 09:21:15 by RD »

*

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #32 on: 12/11/2013 02:09:13 »

It's totally nonsensical to only fake some photos/ films.

All the moon landscape photos were faked, not some. I dont know why they were faked however.

Show me any Apollo 15, 16, 17 photo supposedly taken on the moon with black sky and I'll show you the Kubrick set/background division line. Its in every NASA photo that shows sky.

See for yourself:
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

Every Apollo moon photo (that shows black sky) has two sectors. 1. The front stage and 2. the scotchlite background, just like 2001:Space Odyssey...


« Last Edit: 12/11/2013 02:56:28 by KubricksOdyssey »

*

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #33 on: 12/11/2013 03:05:19 »
I've looked at hundreds of official NASA Apollo photos. They all have the fake Kubrick front screen 2 part signature.

Heres more fake rover pics...




Researcher Jay Weidner here adjusts the GAMMA of the photo exposing Kubricks large stitched scotchlite screen...

« Last Edit: 12/11/2013 03:29:53 by KubricksOdyssey »

*

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #34 on: 12/11/2013 03:38:24 »
Here's another large archive of faked Kubrick Apollo photos...

See for yourself....
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?147


*

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #35 on: 12/11/2013 04:14:04 »
Another fake rover pic and anomalous background pic.

40 years ago they never envisioned an internet that would uncover careless mistakes such as re-using the same background slide...


« Last Edit: 12/11/2013 06:00:43 by KubricksOdyssey »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8169
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #36 on: 12/11/2013 04:35:37 »
Another fake rover pic.

40 years ago they never envisioned an internet that would uncover careless mistakes such as re-using the same background slide...



You're shooting yourself in the foot : the hill in the background is lit differently between the two frames and the viewpoint is slightly different too, i.e. not "the same background slide".  Reducing the interval between the frames helps make it even more obvious they are not "the same" , if they were "the same" there wouldn't be any movement [or local changes in brightness due to the changing position of the sun ] ...

[attachment=18164]

Like I said you are wasting your time here (and generally) by repeating this guff .

[ BTW flooding this forum with many consecutive posts could get you banned]
« Last Edit: 12/11/2013 05:18:50 by RD »

*

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #37 on: 12/11/2013 05:27:00 »

« Last Edit: 14/11/2013 19:32:51 by KubricksOdyssey »

*

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #38 on: 12/11/2013 06:23:55 »
You're shooting yourself in the foot : the hill in the background is lit differently between the two frames and the viewpoint is slightly different too, i.e. not "the same background slide".

Patallax issues aside, are you beginning to at least see the horizonal line Kubrick used in EVERY landscape photo to hide the background screen.

I dont expect Apollo apologists to admit seeing something so obviously fake, but there is always hope for growth. See if you can pick out in this photo where the set ends and rhe background screen begins...



*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8169
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #39 on: 12/11/2013 06:48:15 »
Patallax issues aside ...

Parallax shows the images were taken from two different viewpoints , the changes in lighting shows they were taken at different times. Your allegation that it is the same faked backdrop is evidently false.



And yet you waste your time posting yet more of this tripe ...

Case of the magically appearing rovers.

Looking for LRVs ? , here's a link to a picture of one on the moon taken in 2011 ...

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/584392main_M168000580LR_ap17_area.jpg
 [ the "parked" LRV is very close to the right edge of the image]

On that image you can also see the tyre tracks it has made when it was tootling about on the moon's surface.

End of story.
« Last Edit: 12/11/2013 06:50:05 by RD »

*

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #40 on: 12/11/2013 07:26:24 »
Looking for LRVs ? , here's a link to a picture of one on the moon taken in 2011 ...

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/584392main_M168000580LR_ap17_area.jpg
 [ the "parked" LRV is very close to the right edge of the image]

On that image you can also see the tyre tracks it has made on the moon's surface.

End of story.

The ALL or NONE argument (a common fallacy used by Apollo apologists) does not disprove the BOTH argument to which evidence points is correct. Getting to the moon and faking footage is not incompatible.

Fake footage also does not disprove a landing. It just shows there were problems and faking was the chosen solution.

Kubrick was NASA's chosen solution for whatever reason. Proof is in the photos, video and science.

If ektachrome film cannot survive space radiation/magnetic/lunar surface heat extremes and SSTV cannot be transmitted 237,000 miles (the length of 30 earths) by a lunar module running on obsolete vacuum tubes and weak Exide batteries, why not fake it, eh?

Havent even mentioned yet Kubricks use of miniatures and models...

« Last Edit: 13/11/2013 14:59:53 by KubricksOdyssey »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8169
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #41 on: 12/11/2013 08:41:41 »
If ektachrome film cannot survive space radiation/magnetic/lunar surface heat extremes ...

One of your sources of images Elvisinpersonator seems to think photographic film can survive a trip to the moon, however it looks like debris , (such as flakes of anti-reflection paint, or couple of chips of film), inside of the camera have created similar triangular artifacts on consecutive frames of film.   

Also Elvisinpersonator's "transparent astronaut" is due to another normal artifact in electronic (not film) cameras called "afterimage" .

[ If you are in contact with Elvisinpersonator please tell him his sanity has "left the building" ].
« Last Edit: 12/11/2013 09:02:01 by RD »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4809
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #42 on: 12/11/2013 09:10:36 »

Quote
If ektachrome film cannot survive space radiation/magnetic/lunar surface heat extremes and SSTV cannot be transmitted 270,000 miles (the length of 30 earths) by a lunar module running on obsolete vacuum tubes and weak Exide batteries, why not fake it, eh?

Ektachrome is fairly insensitive to ionising radiation - no more so than humans, who also magically survived the other supposed physical hazards. We still use vacuum tubes for some UHF communication - they aren't obsolete and certainly weren't in the 1960's, though there was a deliberate policy not to put any new technology into space. As for the distance involved, there were already geosynchronous communication satellites and deep space probes in operation. You can get away with very low power in line-of-sight transmission, especially if you have receiver aerials the size of Jodrell Bank and Parkes.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #43 on: 12/11/2013 18:13:11 »
I'd like someone to attempt to explain something so far I've addressed several times. Its been ignored and is becoming the elephant in the room.

Why does every Apollo photo [supposedly taken on the moon which shows a background] always contain a foreground hiding that background. I'm not talking about some Apollo moon photos with background. I'm talking about every one. 

Please address this strange and bizarre coincidence which in my opinion is statistically impossible. Also address why every photo is set up as a front screen projection as Stanley Kubrick would do. To be precise, lets begin this issue by keeping focus first on Apollo 17 photos which can be found here:  http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

For example, I chose this below photo completely at random, it was the first background pic selected by my mouse from Apollo 17 archive....I've then added labels, and call this phenomena the "Kubrick Horizontal"...




*

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #44 on: 12/11/2013 18:28:40 »
Going back into the archive I clicked on a second pic looking for the next Kubrick Horizontal and happened to find this GEM completely at random. It is image AS17-134-20400

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20400HR.jpg

Anyone who is sentient, rational, with a keen sense of discernment, can see it is a scaled miniature. Also note the Kubrick Horizontal is there with the miniatures.
« Last Edit: 12/11/2013 18:33:07 by KubricksOdyssey »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8169
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #45 on: 12/11/2013 18:52:42 »
... call this phenomena the "Kubrick Horizontal"...

No let's call it what it is : normal perspective when you are on an undulating terrain. On such a terrain the only landscape photos where the horizon does not appear like this are where the photographer is in an elevated position, e.g. photographs taken from the top of a mountain, or looking over the edge of a high cliff, or from air/space craft high above the surface.
 I doubt you have seen "every Apollo photo" : maybe there are some taken on the surface from an elevated viewpoint , but it must be a bit awkward to climb a mountain in a spacesuit.
« Last Edit: 12/11/2013 19:29:42 by RD »

*

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #46 on: 12/11/2013 19:25:12 »
RD (or anyone), can you show me an Apollo 17 photo (with a background) that does not contain a Kubrick Horizontal terrain separation?

Also, was anyone able to discern the miniature rover just posted?

Here it is again...

Scaled Miniature Rover (with bizarre haze to shroud/cloak the miniature)
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20400HR.jpg

« Last Edit: 12/11/2013 20:18:19 by KubricksOdyssey »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8169
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #47 on: 12/11/2013 19:33:56 »
RD (or anyone), show me an Apollo 17 photo (with a background) that does not contain a Kubrick Horizontal terrain separation.

Only if you ask nicely and promise never to post in this forum again.

*

Offline KubricksOdyssey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 76
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #48 on: 12/11/2013 19:54:00 »
RD (or anyone), show me an Apollo 17 photo (with a background) that does not contain a Kubrick Horizontal terrain separation.

Only if you ask nicely and promise never to post in this forum again.

RD, why are you stalling. Surely it must be a simple task to find just ONE photo without the terrain line? Just ONE? How hard can it be to find just ONE?

Or would you rather choose to be like these guys...lol...

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8169
    • View Profile
Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« Reply #49 on: 12/11/2013 20:28:33 »
... Surely it must be a simple task to find just ONE photo without the terrain line? Just ONE? How hard can it be to find just ONE?

It was quite easy : it only took a few minutes to find three ,
 ( presumably faked by some other method by some other Hollywood type , Walt Disney maybe ?)

Like I said if you ask me politely  , ( that means saying "please" ), and promise never to post in this forum again,
I will post the pictures here and give links to the NASA webpages where I found them.

PS
the " Scotchlite" screen technique you've mentioned here can only be placed a couple of meters behind the actor , (see inverse square law for the reason why)   ...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_projection_effect

So if you're trying to use Scotchlite-screen to explain things [images] which are tens of meters in front of the camera it's simply not physically possible.

[ To fake distant backgrounds Hollywood used to use something called "matte painting" ]

« Last Edit: 12/11/2013 22:05:16 by RD »